Advancing Trauma-Informed Workforce Development: Provider-Level Predictors of Change In Trauma-Informed Practice Confidence and Utilization Following Online Training

Background: US children and families are exposed to high rates of trauma, including violence, systemic inequities, and natural disasters. Although evidence-based trauma treatments (EBTTs) exist, the implementation-to-practice gap can exceed 20 years, limiting equitable access to trauma-informed care while contributing to provider burnout and secondary traumatic stress syndrome. To support trauma-informed workforce development and wellbeing, we developed an asynchronous online training intervention aimed to increase confidence and utilization of the Common Trauma-Informed Practice Elements (CTIPE). This study examined provider-level predictors of CTIPE confidence and utilization post-intervention. We hypothesized that participants with prior trauma training, higher baseline confidence/utilization, and employment in mental health-related roles would report higher post-training confidence and utilization.

Methods: This IRB-approved study used baseline and post-intervention survey data from a national convenience sample of 3,660 participants who completed the intervention between January 2024 and December 2025 across mental health, education, healthcare, human services, and community-based settings. Participants were predominantly female and aged 25–34. Predictor variables included baseline confidence/utilization, prior trauma training, MSW trauma course enrollment, professional role, work setting, licensure, years practicing, and education level. Two multiple linear regression analyses were conducted in SPSS to examine provider-level predictors of post-training confidence and utilization.

Results: Multiple linear regression models predicting post-intervention confidence and intended utilization were significant. The confidence model explained 17.1% of variance in post-intervention confidence, F(29, 3015) = 21.49, p < .001, whereas the utilization model explained 8.5% of variance in intended utilization, F(28, 3132) = 10.33, p < .001. Higher post-intervention confidence was predicted by current course enrollment (β = .053, SE = 0.042, p = .003), prior trauma training (β = .045, SE = 0.048, p = .033), baseline knowledge confidence (β = .078, SE = 0.022, p = .007), baseline resources confidence (β = .098, SE = 0.024, p = .002), baseline knowledge utilization (β = .092, SE = 0.020, p = .002), baseline reasoning utilization (β = .142, SE = 0.021, p < .001), and student status (β = .063, SE = 0.070, p = .040). Intended utilization was predicted by baseline intersection utilization (β = −.063, SE = 0.002, p < .001), baseline knowledge utilization (β = .095, SE = 0.020, p = .002), baseline reasoning utilization (β = .093, SE = 0.021, p = .005), baseline resources utilization (β = .090, SE = 0.020, p = .003), student/trainee work setting (β = .093, SE = 0.080, p = .006), and current course enrollment (β = .061, SE = 0.044, p = .001), whereas non-mental health provider status predicted lower intended utilization (β = −.055, SE = 0.095, p = .003).

Implications: Findings suggest provider-level factors were more predictive of post-training confidence than intended behavioral application, highlighting a potential theory-to-practice gap in trauma-informed education. This discrepancy may reflect organizational constraints that limit implementation despite improved perceived competence. Prior trauma training predicted higher post-intervention confidence, underscoring the importance of ongoing professional development. Expanding trauma-informed training and implementation supports beyond mental health disciplines may strengthen trauma-responsive capacity and promote equitable access to trauma-informed care.